Joey Barton did wrong. He was very wrong in assaulting his team mate; he was very wrong in stubbing a cigar out in youth player Jason Tandy’s eye (he was provoked somewhat by Tandy attempting to set fire to his shirt, but still very wrong). He was very wrong in assaulting a bloke in the street, and quite rightly he was refused bail and later jailed for the offence.

On July 1st this year, I as a Newcastle fan decided I’d had enough of him, saying:

No more. I don’t want you at my club.Me

However, I’m beginning to change my mind. For a start, he’s served his time and his ban without a whiff of complaint; he’s apparently not drank alcohol (which contributed to some of the issues) for 10 months, and he’s generally not dragged my club through the dirt since last December. But more than that, I’m warming to him because I feel he’s being unfairly picked on.

This headline sums it up:

Can we ban Joey Barton from football now, please?The Spoiler

And this is what it seems to be about: many people (and indeed many people in the media) feel that Barton should have no place in football and therefore everything he says or does is magnified and twisted in case there is a possible way that they can suggest he should be banned from football and kicked out of the game completely because of it.

First you had the Samir Nasri incident. He put in a hard challenge on Nasri — but one in which (and remember this, this is important) the referee deemed that he had won the ball fairly and without infringement — and Nasri later cynically took him out in revenge.

This gets reported as:

Fair play to Arsenal for sticking the boot into Newcastle bad boy BartonDaily Mail

Now fair enough, I’m used to yer biased-anti Newcastle reporting from The Mail, it’s more than a little predictable, but here the Daily Mail have condoned a revenge attack on another player. So, according to the Daily Mail, it’s perfectly all right to retaliate and kick someone who has successfully tackled you. Or at least it is if it’s Joey Barton. Oh, and a number of reports complained about Barton “smiling” after making the tackle. Is it not possible he was just pleased to be back, since he’d come on as a substitute moments earlier for his first appearance in months? No?

Okay then, Joey is then banned by the FA for 6 matches with 6 more suspended for the Dabo incident almost two years earlier. After serving this ban, he’s getting ready to come on as a substitute against Sunderland, when…

Then the cop intervened, telling Barton to go back to the dug-out as bottles and coins were thrown.The People

Now l know he’s a bad lad, but how come the fact that he can’t warm up properly because people are throwing bottles at him not get the same degree of condemnation as he has previously had? Yes, I know he didn’t help matters by kissing the Newcastle badge on his shirt, but if you throw a bottle from the crowd and hit someone warming up on the side of the pitch, you could seriously injure them. But apparently that’s okay if it’s Joey Barton…

And then Barton scored a penalty to help Newcastle beat West Brom.

A spot of catharsis in every sense, Barton’s penalty still cannot mask the reality that he was found guilty of assault and affray outside a Liverpool fast-food outlet, that he once pulped a team-mate’s face at Manchester City. Barton has brought shame on his profession and his club.Daily Telegraph: Joey Barton enjoys spot of redemption as Newcastle beat West Brom

Now that’s fair enough. They mention what he’s done in the past, which is something he will have to carry around with him for a very long time, but there’s no presumption of future guilt; he’s allowed to celebrate scoring the penalty without it being held against him.

Until of course we play Aston Villa, and there is an incident where Joey Barton raises his hand to Agbonlahor’s mouth. It’s not a fist, nor even a slap, but Barton does touch Agbonlahor’s mouth with his fingertips. There is certainly contact.

So the Mail — I’m using them in particular, because they are the worst, but any of the daily rags would do — decide this ought to result in a lengthy ban.

A long FA ban for last night’s incident would appear harsh for anybody else, but Barton’s situation justifies action.Daily Mail

Let’s get this right: if Barton does it, he should get banned, but not if anyone else does it? Does that not maybe strike anyone as a little unfair? Can you see why I’m starting to think ‘witchhunt’ here?

Sadly for the Daily Mail, the FA invited the referee to review the incident, which he did so, and decided that it was not violent conduct, therefore not a red card offence, and therefore Joey Barton would be subject to no additional sanction for it. Note that the FA only reviewed Barton’s incident, not any others.

Football 365 injects a note of sanity:

The trial that awaits is of the FA and whether the governing body is ready to be bullied by the media into taking action against the midfielder…The ugly side to Newcastle’s win wasn’t Barton’s ‘spat’ with Agbonlahor but the speed and relish to condemn.

Barton is being targeted because Newcastle’s last five matches have been played out in front of the live cameras and he is the player the media want to target. It is discriminatory and those demanding ‘justice’ are the ones committing the injustice.

The picture accompanying this article shows Tony Hibbert grappling with Gael Clichy in a match at Arsenal last month. It was not highlighted by the media, or even shown by the television cameras, despite the Everton full-back committing … the same crime that Barton has been found guilty of – that of raising his hands. Why not? Because Hibbert, compared to Barton, is a nobody. He does not sell. So the flashpoint was not spotlighted and the FA, with the agenda of their disciplinary department dictated by the television schedules and weight of media outrage, remained mute.

Football 365: One Rule For Barton, One For Everyone Else?

But because Barton has been cleared of that, it seems that the media have to try and find another way to get him. Obviously, they can’t get him for violent conduct because he wasn’t actually violent, but maybe they can get him for being a nasty racist? The Sun leads the way…

Lip-reading expert Terry Ruane added: “Agbonlahor makes a face seemingly by thrusting his bottom lip at Barton, as if to suggest Barton is behaving like a baby.

Barton slaps his face around the lip and says, ‘Pack it in, f*****g lip’.

The player points to Barton and looks away in amazement.

“Barton walks off saying, ‘F**k it’, then moves his finger round his mouth appearing to say, ‘F**k your big lips’.”

The Sun: Barton in ‘big lips’ race row

Well, apart from the obvious point that Barton didn’t actually slap Agbonlahor — otherwise the FA would have banned him, let’s make no bones about that — if Agbonlahor has been sticking his lip out at Barton to make it look bigger and imply that Barton is behaving like a baby, is it not maybe remotely conceivable — or even virtually certain — that it was this action that Barton referred to? Or are we required to assume the worst of Barton at every opportunity despite him not having done anything wrong since last December.

Now if he is making racist comments, I’d like to see him banned. I don’t think any tolerance should be applied to people who dish out racist abuse at football matches. But in this case, I can’t help but feel that the man’s main crime is simply of being Joey Barton, for which many in the media would like to see him be hung, drawn and quartered.

Apparently now Agbonlahor and Aston Villa have decided ‘not to pursue the matter’, but that doesn’t appease those baying for his blood:

Joey Barton could still face a Football Association charge despite Aston Villa striker Gabriel Agbonlahor’s decision not to lodge an official complaint over an alleged remark made by the Newcastle midfielder during Monday night’s match at St James’ Park.

Reports this morning (Wednesday) alleged that Barton made a racist comment during a confrontation involving the pair following a first-half foul.

Daily Mail: No complaints from Gabriel Agbonlahor but Joey Barton ‘race row’ refuses to go away

Um… this ‘race row’ that is refusing to go away… this would be the one where Agbonlahor has decided that no action need be taken? Possibly because if Barton has said something about ‘big lips’ Agbonlahor has worked out that it might have something to do with what he was doing with his lips? Would this be the same one that is refusing to go away only because the papers brought up this tosh in the first place?

According to teletext, Villa “didn’t think they could prove the allegations 100%”. Yeah, and if I was accused of the assassination of President Kennedy, nobody would be able to prove the allegations 100% either; but phrased like that, it’s made out to be an assumption of guilt, rather than innocence.

Barton has been convicted by the media’s kangaroo court of the heinous crime of ‘being Joey Barton’ and they, more than Barton or anyone else are responsible for AstonVillaGate. It’s simply that their target has moved on from Russell Brand and Jonathon Ross to the next person they can vilify and seek to destroy.

If no charges are made — and I doubt they ever will be — Barton will still be tarred with the brush of being accused of being a racist. Oddly enough, by the Daily Mail.

Would that be the same Daily Mail which supported the Nazis in the 1930s?

Rothermere was a friend and supporter of both Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler, which influenced the Mail’s political stance towards them up to 1939. During this period, it was the only British newspaper consistently to support the German Nazi PartyWikipedia: The Daily Mail

Or would it be the Daily Mail which today still continues it’s tirade against asylum seekers? The one accused of pressurising their journalists to write inflammatory stories about asylum seekers? Or could it be the Daily Mail who only three days ago had to pay damages to Marco Materazzi after falsely accusing him of being a racist?

Only, you see, I’m struggling to see where they are getting their moral high ground from…

Particularly when compared to ‘footballers who have killed’. Patrick Kluivert was charged with manslaughter and ended up facing community service and a driving ban. Lee Hughes caused death by dangerous driving and spend two and a bit years behind bars. Yet because he’s not playing in the Premiership, the fact that Barton has punched someone means he is the one who there shouldn’t be room for in football. And irrespective of what I think of Lee Hughes’ past behaviour, he has served his time and taken his punishment. If you don’t think he went to prison for long enough, I sympathise with that view — but the fact is he’s served the punishment our justice system required from him. Shouldn’t he now be allowed to move on with his life? Shouldn’t Barton?

Or is that option only for footballers who don’t play for Newcastle any more, such as Woodgate?

Joey Barton was a thug. He’s done wrong. It’s quite right to vilify him for his actions against Dabo; for his assault on Merseyside, and indeed for many other things he’s done in the past. What it is wrong to do is to look for him to be punished simply for being Joey Barton.